Is an Ostrich Kosher?

This ostrich/kosher issue has been debated for thousands of years by
Arab and Jew scholars; unfortunately, the issue is clouded, and it has
been obfuscated by translation error. Allow me to summarize, if I
may, many centuries of ostrich/kosher research:

But this was in reference to "ostriches" of that era ( בַּת
הַיַּעֲנָה ) - a sort of proto-Ostrich of the Judean desert unlike the
modern bird of Africa or Morgan Hill, California. The Proto-Ostrich
was, by necessity, lumped together with other "winged things." From
context, we can rest assured that these "ostriches" could fly, and did
not chew cud; these traits automatically disqualify the proscription
against the bird of our own era. The Levitican proto-ostriches were
more regular birds-of-prey, accordingly, were governed by that
rule-set.

But even in Hebrew, ( בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה ) is not even the same word
"ostrich" יען הנגב used to describe that flightless edible bird that
resides in Africa, nor in modern Israeli zoos - because it is a
different animal.

Furthermore, archaeologists who have studied various translations of
the old texts do not even agree that the proscription against this
mystery-bird " בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה " was ever in reference to what we
call Ostrich today (evolutionary changes notwithstanding). Some
speculate that it refers to the dubious "Arabian ostrich." Evidence
for the existence of this bird is sparse; biologists disagree on
fossil identification; it is plausible that no such creature ever
existed. At least one Jewish historian[2] prefers to translate יען
הנגב as "Arabian Vulture" or "Pharaoh Eagle Owl", an extant species
that fits more within the context of the original verse (which was
discussing owls anyway).

stating specifically that birds live similarly to humans; they have
society; and they walk bipedally. There is no proscription against
eating these creatures. The text goes on to state that there are no
exceptions to this rule; and that no rules have been forgotten to be
mentioned in the text; thus closing the ostrich/kosher hole.

Again, we see the نعامة عربية is the same root word as the modern
ostrich, and in this writing system, there can be no ambiguity between
owl / ostrich. Hence, the religious doctrine is uncorrupted by
centuries of translator-errors.

One last possible interpretation is that Ostrich was formerly
forbidden to eat, but later evolved into a creature in accordance with
kashrut. In the thousand or so years between the writing of Leviticus
and the writing of the Quran, ostrich learned to chew cud - thus
satisfying the conjunctional rule of cloven hoof, cud-chewing land
animal. Thus, evolution took place - making the ostrich the only
animal to change its characteristics through evolution in such a way
as to cross the Kashrut boundary since the foundational rules were set
forth. Evolution is a fact; and as we know, any ruleset has
edge-cases; but the ancient ostrich, who was only barely on the edge
of verboteneFrucht, managed to evolve across the barrier. Ostriches
2.0 now qualify as kosher.

Pig has never been upgraded (by act of God or natural selection), and
so it remains, in perpetuity[4], unclean.